Leave moderating to the moderators rule is ridiculous and lame and stupid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by e5

:S I wasn't a mod 1-2 years ago lmao. It is additional because people try to impersonate

---

Who on earth has try to impersonate a moderator?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

Who on earth has try to impersonate a moderator?

---

I have seen people attempt it with the [modwarn] things (that bring up the red bar with the warning message in a thread), but this was a very long time ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hayden

I have seen people attempt it with the [modwarn] things (that bring up the red bar with the warning message in a thread), but this was a very long time ago.

---

And there's the rule for that. But to suggest that the first bit 'Don't tell people they've broke the rules' is so people can impersonate moderators seems crazy :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

And there's the rule for that. But to suggest that the first bit 'Don't tell people they've broke the rules' is so people can impersonate moderators seems crazy :P

Edited by Kardan (General Manager): Don't impersonate moderators using the old style of mod editing that is no longer used.

---

You actually tricked me with that red font I legit thought you'd been warned till i read thrice LOL.
--
And yeah it is crazy :P

From what I remember the rule was implemented because many people would post and tell off others for their rulebreaks rather than contributing to the thread. Additionally, threads might be derailed by debates on the rule itself (ie: is the thread in the wrong forum, why there was a double post, etc.) Furthermore, users might misinterpret or misapply a rule, meaning a moderator might be better suited to handle it. Those to me seem like valid benefits to the rule, and reasons why the rule encourages a more productive dialogue on the forum, which is what the Forum Rules should seek to do.

So those are the benefits (and perhaps there are more). Are there negatives that outweigh it? In what way does this rule impede constructive dialogue, or take away from a discussion going on in a thread? If the positives outweigh the benefits it'd be fair to say the rule isn't so stupid :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nvrspk4

From what I remember the rule was implemented because many people would post and tell off others for their rulebreaks rather than contributing to the thread. Additionally, threads might be derailed by debates on the rule itself (ie: is the thread in the wrong forum, why there was a double post, etc.) Furthermore, users might misinterpret or misapply a rule, meaning a moderator might be better suited to handle it. Those to me seem like valid benefits to the rule, and reasons why the rule encourages a more productive dialogue on the forum, which is what the Forum Rules should seek to do.

So those are the benefits (and perhaps there are more). Are there negatives that outweigh it? In what way does this rule impede constructive dialogue, or take away from a discussion going on in a thread? If the positives outweigh the benefits it'd be fair to say the rule isn't so stupid :)

---

As you said the positives are certainly there, but all the situations it solves are covered by the 'pointless posting' rule. If people aren't contributing to the thread, that's pointless posting. Now, because the rule is in place, it means people are getting warned in spam for what is essentially pointless posting. The first part of the rule (Don't tell people they've broke a rule) doesn't add anything that the pointless posting rule doesn't already cover.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

As you said the positives are certainly there, but all the situations it solves are covered by the 'pointless posting' rule. If people aren't contributing to the thread, that's pointless posting. Now, because the rule is in place, it means people are getting warned in spam for what is essentially pointless posting. The first part of the rule (Don't tell people they've broke a rule) doesn't add anything that the pointless posting rule doesn't already cover.

---

But if someone has posted that the thread is in the wrong forum, and someone else replies that yes it is in the right forum, can you truly say that it's a pointless post? I feel like that's a pretty stretched interpretation of the rules. Plus, technically saying that someone has posted in the wrong forum is contributing something to the thread as you're pointing out an issue with the subject matter. I understand where you're coming from re: it being a pointless post, I was considering it as well, but it seems like it's a bit convoluted defining it as a pointless post. Which makes me feel like for the sake of clarity and straightforward rules, it's better to just have the rule separately, since I don't see a huge downside to it being enforced.

Also another thing, though I'm not really sure where I fall on this since self-policing can be a good thing, but a thought to throw out there. Inter-user discipline can lead to bad feelings and unnecessary criticism. For example, a moderator can see a user's rule-break history and react appropriately, and can also be trained to be gentler with newer members, and thus might be a better figure to handle a post in the wrong forum, rather than the new user being jumped on by other members of the community.

I also, to be honest, don't see such a huge problem with the rule that it needs to be taken away, other than some people got dinged for it and are unhappy about it :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hayden

I have seen people attempt it with the [modwarn] things (that bring up the red bar with the warning message in a thread), but this was a very long time ago.

---

once i used as a joke and i got infraction straight away i was crying i didnt know the consequences

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nvrspk4

But if someone has posted that the thread is in the wrong forum, and someone else replies that yes it is in the right forum, can you truly say that it's a pointless post? I feel like that's a pretty stretched interpretation of the rules. Plus, technically saying that someone has posted in the wrong forum is contributing something to the thread as you're pointing out an issue with the subject matter. I understand where you're coming from re: it being a pointless post, I was considering it as well, but it seems like it's a bit convoluted defining it as a pointless post. Which makes me feel like for the sake of clarity and straightforward rules, it's better to just have the rule separately, since I don't see a huge downside to it being enforced.

Also another thing, though I'm not really sure where I fall on this since self-policing can be a good thing, but a thought to throw out there. Inter-user discipline can lead to bad feelings and unnecessary criticism. For example, a moderator can see a user's rule-break history and react appropriately, and can also be trained to be gentler with newer members, and thus might be a better figure to handle a post in the wrong forum, rather than the new user being jumped on by other members of the community.

I also, to be honest, don't see such a huge problem with the rule that it needs to be taken away, other than some people got dinged for it and are unhappy about it :P

---

Well, the super moderators in this thread have been saying that 'This post is in the wrong forum' or 'You've avoided the filter' is a pointless post as it's not contributing to the thread topic.

I understand where you're coming from and I can see that people wouldn't want to be hounded by forum members if they did break a rule (although I'm not sure if people would hound someone if the rule was absolished) - I just find it crazy that you can be warned in spam for what moderators themselves have defined as pointless posting :P We still want to keep the 2nd part of the rule which is not impersonating a moderator, just the 1st part is crazy.

And with the current rules, this is allowed: "You posted in the wrong forum, but I agree I love apples!"

But this gets you a warning: "You avoided the filter, but I agree I love apples!"

Just seems illogical to me :P

Technically all the rules can inter-link anyway and pointless posting is the glue that sticks them together. Posting inappropriately could be stretched to be considered pointless, avoiding the filter if it is for no real reason, accusing a member of scamming, illegal activities and so forth. The rule about leaving moderation to the moderators gives a specific definition so members know not to do it, as the connection to it being pointless may not even be in their contemplation when telling a member off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

Technically all the rules can inter-link anyway and pointless posting is the glue that sticks them together. Posting inappropriately could be stretched to be considered pointless, avoiding the filter if it is for no real reason, accusing a member of scamming, illegal activities and so forth. The rule about leaving moderation to the moderators gives a specific definition so members know not to do it, as the connection to it being pointless may not even be in their contemplation when telling a member off.

---

Then why on earth didn't the super mods say this rather than saying 'Because it's pointless posting'? :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

Then why on earth didn't the super mods say this rather than saying 'Because it's pointless posting'? :P

---

*REMOVED*

Edited by lawrawrrr (AGM Content): Don't abuse moderator features

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dIrTyBuDdHiSt

*REMOVED*

*REMOVED*

---

I can't tell you you're breaking the rules, so instead, I'll just say 'lol'.

Now, we have 2 AGMs and a GM online, who is going to act first. I'm going with Wispur.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, ok - I totally see why this rule is in place now, I totally though dirtybuddhist was being a moderator because he used the modwarn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

I can't tell you you're breaking the rules, so instead, I'll just say 'lol'.

Now, we have 2 AGMs and a GM online, who is going to act first. I'm going with Wispur.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, ok - I totally see why this rule is in place now, I totally though dirtybuddhist was being a moderator because he used the modwarn.

---

I'm allowed to because I used to be a moderator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

Then why on earth didn't the super mods say this rather than saying 'Because it's pointless posting'? :P

---

Just because not everyone is eloquent at explaining a rule or they go with their own interpretation of why the rule is in place rather than what the person who actually put it in place intended doesn't mean the rule itself is stupid. I think nvr has clearly demonstrated perfect clarity as to why the rule should stay in place and it's up to management to clarify that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

Just because not everyone is eloquent at explaining a rule or they go with their own interpretation of why the rule is in place rather than what the person who actually put it in place intended doesn't mean the rule itself is stupid. I think nvr has clearly demonstrated perfect clarity as to why the rule should stay in place and it's up to management to clarify that.

---

I agree that nvr had a very good argument, I still think a 'This half of the rule doesn't apply in spam' wouldn't do any harm.

If this rule is only because of pointless posting, why not get rid of the 'leave moderating to moderators' rule and just giving a pointless posting mod warn thing for not taking part in the actual discussion? Makes more sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nvrspk4

I also, to be honest, don't see such a huge problem with the rule that it needs to be taken away, other than some people got dinged for it and are unhappy about it :P

---

So are you saying that it was right for them to be told off for it? E.g. http://www.habboxforum.com/showthrea...23#post8165823 Keeping in mind that it happened in the Spam forum :P.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dIrTyBuDdHiSt

*REMOVED*

*REMOVED*

---

Why is this still here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dIrTyBuDdHiSt

*REMOVED*

*REMOVED*

---

Still not sorted... So calum can warn me and @Kardan; within maybe 15 mins, Yet this has been here for over 24 hrs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldenMerc

Still not sorted... So calum can warn me and @Kardan; within maybe 15 mins, Yet this has been here for over 24 hrs?

---

Mods clearly slacking. I made a report;

Yesterday 12:27 AM

Still not been dealt with...?
--
Oh well wd laura.

Sorry guys, hadn't noticed tht one. Removed now!

It was 2 hours not 24 hours? :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hayden

Mods clearly slacking. I made a report;

Yesterday 12:27 AM

Still not been dealt with...?
--
Oh well wd laura.

---

you made a report before the post was posted?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scottish

It was 2 hours not 24 hours? :P

---

my bad your right

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldenMerc

Still not sorted... So calum can warn me and @Kardan; within maybe 15 mins, Yet this has been here for over 24 hrs?

---

I thought mods are supposed to wait until the 15 min editing time is up in case you edit your post e.g. add on something so that it's not pointless any more? Unless ofc it's something that requires immediate attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hayden

Mods clearly slacking. I made a report;

Yesterday 12:27 AM

Still not been dealt with...?
--
Oh well wd laura.

---

I have reports from 25th still waiting for a response :P.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lawrawrrr

you made a report before the post was posted?

---

No this is about a different post haha :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr-Trainor

I thought mods are supposed to wait until the 15 min editing time is up in case you edit your post e.g. add on something so that it's not pointless any more? Unless ofc it's something that requires immediate attention.

I have reports from 25th still waiting for a response :P.

---

We got warned for telling each other its against the rules to post in spam lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr-Trainor

I thought mods are supposed to wait until the 15 min editing time is up in case you edit your post e.g. add on something so that it's not pointless any more? Unless ofc it's something that requires immediate attention.

I have reports from 25th still waiting for a response :P.

---

Wow wth. Aren't there a good 6/7 mods or so? It shouldn't take this long :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hayden

Wow wth. Aren't there a good 6/7 mods or so? It shouldn't take this long :P

---

Just checked and the two from 25th have been dealt with (one by a mod and one by an smod) but both are still 'open' so idk :P.

Only SMods+ can see the post reports forum. I've had a quick look through just now, seems the mods are all on holiday this weekend though :L

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr-Trainor

Just checked and the two from 25th have been dealt with (one by a mod and one by an smod) but both are still 'open' so idk :P.

---

Oh I checked the thread I reported and the issue wasn't solved (the thread should have been closed as it's a duplicate) :P
--
Oh nvm nick dealt with it 10am this morning LOL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr-Trainor

Just checked and the two from 25th have been dealt with (one by a mod and one by an smod) but both are still 'open' so idk :P.

---

I have one from the 22nd still outstanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

Who on earth has try to impersonate a moderator?

---

Using mod warns and people just generally wanting to be me

*REMOVED*

I have a report from like the 6th that still hasn't been sorted out because e5 hid it and VMd me telling me not to report him rather than admit that he'd misdealt with the problem

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hayden

Mods clearly slacking. I made a report;

Yesterday 12:27 AM

Still not been dealt with...?

---

Only two people to deal with all the reports, on top of all the reports that we give to them as normal moderators so I think the process is a little slower at the moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldenMerc

Still not sorted... So calum can warn me and @Kardan; within maybe 15 mins, Yet this has been here for over 24 hrs?

---

I was out today, and besides I don't moderate feedback

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr-Trainor

I thought mods are supposed to wait until the 15 min editing time is up in case you edit your post e.g. add on something so that it's not pointless any more? Unless ofc it's something that requires immediate attention.

I have reports from 25th still waiting for a response :P.

---

I've never heard of the first point but I guess it seems logical. There is no such rule though I don't think
I have reports waiting too ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hayden

Wow wth. Aren't there a good 6/7 mods or so? It shouldn't take this long :P

---

There are but the only ones with powers in feedback are James (Despect), Elliott (e5), Nick and Phil.
Phil is on limited activity and Nick was probably sleeping.

Hey guys! Sorry, I've been on Limited Activity! Pretty crazy week for me and I've just gotten the chance to read through this now.

Okay, I don't think there's necessarily any problem with this rule and I'm not sure if it needs to be changed. I agree with what Nick is saying about informing someone that the topic already exists but while still discussing the matter of the thread is fine. This is because posting in the wrong area, posting a duplicate thread etc. isn't really breaking any rules. This is why we VM for this and it doesn't get a usernote.

I would much prefer people used the report feature if someone breaks a rule instead of doing it publicly in a thread and for that reason I'm going to keep the rule in place and make no immediate changes. I agree that it should be more lax in Spam but only when it's banter between friends. In saying that, I'm not going to make any changes to the PM's that have already been given because as far as I remember, you were being immature and targeting the mods or a member of the moderation team (forgive me if I'm wrong - it would make a change if you weren't)

Sorry again for the long awaited reply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil

Hey guys! Sorry, I've been on Limited Activity! Pretty crazy week for me and I've just gotten the chance to read through this now.

Okay, I don't think there's necessarily any problem with this rule and I'm not sure if it needs to be changed. I agree with what Nick is saying about informing someone that the topic already exists but while still discussing the matter of the thread is fine. This is because posting in the wrong area, posting a duplicate thread etc. isn't really breaking any rules. This is why we VM for this and it doesn't get a usernote.

I would much prefer people used the report feature if someone breaks a rule instead of doing it publicly in a thread and for that reason I'm going to keep the rule in place and make no immediate changes. I agree that it should be more lax in Spam but only when it's banter between friends. In saying that, I'm not going to make any changes to the PM's that have already been given because as far as I remember, you were being immature and targeting the mods or a member of the moderation team (forgive me if I'm wrong - it would make a change if you weren't)

Sorry again for the long awaited reply.

---

When were we targeting mods?

And I'm never listening to @xxMATTGxx; again :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

When were we targeting mods?

And I'm never listening to @xxMATTGxx; again :(

---

But Kardan we are like best friends :'(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kardan

When were we targeting mods?

And I'm never listening to @xxMATTGxx; again :(

---

When are you not giving e5 a hard time